Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 215 posts

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#61

Post by bdamm »

rtpg wrote: post #52
stale2002 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.

Kind of ironic that the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics would defeat the purpose of the speed of light hack

Not really. Even entanglement doesn't get you faster than light communications.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#62

Post by XorNot »

rtpg wrote: post #52
stale2002 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.

Kind of ironic that the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics would defeat the purpose of the speed of light hack

Entanglement is a use after free bug left in for backwards compatibility.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#63

Post by pizza »

Fordrus wrote: post #44
byebyetech wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea that Universe is a simulation vs real is absurd to me. What if the Universe is a simulation running in a computer no one actually built but just fluctuated into existence. Does that make it more real or still a simulation?

See, I'm with you in the primary portion of this statement- if we're in a simulation, it doesn't make us any less 'real' - it doesn't matter whether I'm made of atoms or the stray thoughts of a passing horsefly. It is nevertheless important and interesting to know what the underlying medium in which I exist is, especially because there's no especially compelling reason why many kinds of simulated being could not crea…

apparently computers spring up from nothing into miraculous existence quite often

Abiogenesis, the existence of physics, every "discovery" that results in new-found understanding of what is, the universe itself.. life is a boltzmann brain, physics is a boltzmann brain, discoveries are boltzmann brains, the universe itself, a boltzmann brain?

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#64

Post by j2kun »

monktastic1 wrote: post #2

Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....

Try this physics paper[1] explaining how pretty much every model we have of physics is broken in fundamental ways. Things you take for granted because of what you've read in popular media (eg., heat death of the universe) are simply speculation based on stretching an incomplete mathematical model to its limits. The simulated reality nonsense is the same bad logic in a different guise.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.01421

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#65

Post by j2kun »

ewzimm wrote: post #25
ebbv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no serious evidence for the simulation theory. It is more of a religious belief than a scientific theory since it poses more problems than it answers (who is running the simulation? How did they come to exist? What is their reality like? Etc.)

I don't think it's religious. It's more like a conjecture in mathematics, an idea meant to inspire questions. The fact that it poses more problems than it answers is the whole point! We know that systems can be nested. Do we know that the systems we perceive and can test directly compose the most fundamental layer? How can we tell? If we want to have any faith in science and testing our direct experiences, we need to…

It is not a conjecture, it is a valid argument on unsound premises.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#66

Post by ihaveahadron »

monktastic1 wrote: post #2

Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....

your retarded, if "simulated reality" is how you describe "I'm alive and have consciousness because I was born and grew a brain (even if your brain is shit, you silly have a shorty brshit)

I can't ducking talk to anyone you all ducking morons

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#67

Post by mrleiter »

tomelders wrote: post #8

Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.

The issue with your definition can be shown when thinking about the absolute zero point (that is, 0°K): as per definition in this state, particles lack any kind of energy. Common tongue would say that it is "frozen". Now if this state lasts, let's say, indefinitely, time would be non-existent. As there is absolutely no change in the state of the particle.

PS: Although one could now argue that the act of observation changes its state.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#68

Post by ihaveahadron »

logicallee wrote: post #60
monktastic1 wrote: post #2

Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....

>leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality Just to elaborate, this is really easy to show. Just take two pieces of paper, and scribble all over one of them for 10-15 minutes. Then crumple them up and throw them to the ground. The blank one will fall to the ground smoothly. But the one that has a lot of image information will tax the Universe's GPU, because it isn't able to comp…

morons who play way too many video games

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#69

Post by School-Cotton »

Alex3917 wrote: post #11
DougN7 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is ironic is the amount of blind faith required to accept some of these things that are so completely against everything we experience. It's very nearly a religion.

> It's very nearly a religion. I'd argue it is a religion. The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it. That's what physicists and cosmologists do. These disciplines also fulfill the needs of scientists for meaning and community and ritual, not unlike Christianity or Islam or whatever. Just because you might happen to believe something d…

Arguing based on etymology is a logical fallacy.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#70

Post by solipsism »

Alex3917 wrote: post #35
dragonwriter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word religion means to "bind back" or "yolk", No, it doesn't. Less importantly, you mean "yoke" and not "yolk", and more importantly you are confusing the definition of a the Latin word religare from which it is believed the Latin word religio may have been derived (from which, in turn, the Middle English "religion" meaning "life under monastic vows" may have been derived) with the definition of the Modern Engl…

> The Modern English word religion doesn't mean the same thing as Latin religare, or even Latin religio, or even the original Middle English sense of religion. If you look at these lists of 'modern' definitions of religion, the plurality (if not the majority) of the ones from academia seem roughly aligned with the (disputed) etymology. http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Re…

The etymology wasn't disputed. What was disputed is the way you are playing with etymology in order to get it to fit your desired narrative.

The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it.

Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow. It has nothing to do with seeking an understanding of the universe or our place in it. Therefore, the etymology of the word religion is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Post reply on HN